Cowboys Sign Romo to $108M Deal: Skins Fans Rejoice!

[Bucket]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

I mean, I've seen you do it a lot.

Unless you were trolling, in case, nice job sir.

Huh? Don't confuse my legitimacy from the shit you post on the daily claiming as fact.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by Bucket

Huh? Don't confuse my legitimacy from the shit you post on the daily claiming as fact.

Says the only person lacking enough credibility to have ever been on my ignore list.

In seven years, mind you.

[That Guy]

i dunno... the whole kolb thing is pretty stupid too.

[Giantone]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

So, so wrong. You don't get paid in the NFL based on past production. You get paid for repeatable skills.

Since winning "event" games isn't a skill, i.e. no player is more or less likely to win a single event in the future than the past, it is not valued. The abilities that translate to wins are valued, but past record (particularly team record) doesn't mean anything.

You call "winning" the super bowl and event game and in your opinion it carries no weight in their (the players) contract talks, so your saying you get paid for potential not performance, correct?

[Giantone]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

I think we all (myself certainly) thought that the Giants dumped a ton of money into Eli in 2009 when he was a mediocre player on a mediocre team and couldn't understand that $100 million deal. But of course, that extension looks great now. The Giants look a lot better because of Eli's contract going forward. I think the Cowboys are hoping for the same thing, and I don't think they are going to get it.

You forget Eli had already won a bowl and a MVP of the game by then, Romo not even close.

[skinsfan69]

I can't stand it when qb's are based a W/L record. Since when does the QB go out and play against all 11 guys by himself?

[skinsfan69]

Originally Posted by Giantone

You forget Eli had already won a bowl and a MVP of the game by then, Romo not even close.

Eli didn't win it by himself. I think the Giants d-line had a lot to do with the first one. Eli did his part though..

[donofriose]

Originally Posted by skinsfan69

I can't stand it when qb's are based a W/L record. Since when does the QB go out and play against all 11 guys by himself?

I don't think its necessarily the win lose record, I think it is more of the fact if the quarterback puts his team in the best position to win the game. That is why I believe stats are overrated as well. Stafford/Romo/Rivers are perfect examples of players who do not always put their team in positions to win games, but they do fill up a stats sheet. I never expect a quarterback to win a game by themselves (and if they do that means they are elite, like Manning, Brady, Rogers and Brees), but I do expect a quarterback to put their team in the best position to win a game by not throwing pics at the worst times during a game.

[skinsfaninok]

Originally Posted by donofriose

I don't think its necessarily the win lose record, I think it is more of the fact if the quarterback puts his team in the best position to win the game. That is why I believe stats are overrated as well. Stafford/Romo/Rivers are perfect examples of players who do not always put their team in positions to win games, but they do fill up a stats sheet. I never expect a quarterback to win a game by themselves (and if they do that means they are elite, like Manning, Brady, Rogers and Brees), but I do expect a quarterback to put their team in the best position to win a game by not throwing pics at the worst times during a game.

Again though, u can't really put romo in that category because he leads to league in forth quarter wins since 2009. Pretty much Tony is really good until it's an elimination game which is y he's not elite, but he's also not a sorry bumb either. He's pretty good

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by skinsfaninok

That's the problem with team sports though, like if u ask ncskins about Tom Brady's record he'll say it's because of the team around him but if u ask about romos record it's because he sucks. IMO it's about team not 1 guy, Tony has no line at all and no running game. Not to mention Griffin and our offense was owning the Dallas defense in that game.

His fumble game should have been a win against Seattle, that was basically a fluke play

That's the point its not a fluke play for him and he choked the game away. He does have the stats which is why he got this deal but they ignored his play when it really counts. I was watching him play in a golf outing on TV and he was leading by 2 going into the last hole. Guess what he did? Choked and made a double boggy. Mark Rippen won by a stroke. He does not handle preasure at all.

[donofriose]

Originally Posted by skinsfaninok

Again though, u can't really put romo in that category because he leads to league in forth quarter wins since 2009. Pretty much Tony is really good until it's an elimination game which is y he's not elite, but he's also not a sorry bumb either. He's pretty good

I don't think Romo is terrible, I just do not think he is worth 55 million guaranteed. But the cowboys were stuck. Its good for the Skins because I do not see a superbowl win with him because like you said, he seems to save his worst games for most important times of the year.

[Giantone]

Originally Posted by skinsfan69

Eli didn't win it by himself. I think the Giants d-line had a lot to do with the first one. Eli did his part though..

Yes he did do his part and so like every other winning QB should be compensated for it for what he has done and also for what he can do.

[Ruhskins]

Romo has proven over and over again that he can't win when it matters the most. While I agree that he is a somewhat steady presence at the QB position for the Cowpukes, getting paid more than QBs that have won when it mattered is ridiculous. Throw on top of that the fact that Dallas is being ran by one of the worst decision-makers in the league, I don't know how anyone here can defend this contract with a straight face.

It is my understanding that NFL players get paid on production and potential. Romo has provided the team with slightly above average production, something that won't cut it in a team with such high expectations from the media, their "fans", and their front office. Nor will it cut it in a team where being "good enough" gets fired. Also right now, there is nothing that tells me that Romo has the potential to be better than what he has done his whole career.

The Cowpukes are definitely stuck with Romo, but NOTHING he has done justifies the money in this contract.

[NC_Skins]

Originally Posted by Giantone

You call "winning" the super bowl and event game and in your opinion it carries no weight in their (the players) contract talks, so your saying you get paid for potential not performance, correct?

I think he's referring to the actual pay. No NFL player gets a "salary" for any games past the regular season. Playoff games are covered by bonuses (all equal) and will be higher/lower depending on if you win or lose.

SO when he says you don't get paid to win the super bowl or playoff games, he's right. You don't. You sign those contracts based on the 16 games during the season. Everything else is gravy.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by Giantone

You call "winning" the super bowl and event game and in your opinion it carries no weight in their (the players) contract talks, so your saying you get paid for potential not performance, correct?

Correct. Ability to lead team to super bowls in the future matters, but number of super bowls previously won does not.